November 26, 2020, 09:37:44 am

Author Topic: The Wizard discussion  (Read 32855 times)

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
The Wizard discussion
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2015, 10:07:31 am »
This was my response to a similar discussion we are having in the playtester forum.

What pushes Wizard over the edge is that his class specific cards are just better than every other class in combination with the training. For example, if Warlord had good conquer(No some control, no stupid soldier required) and the awful rule of outposts not being able to be put to next to each other was gone, I think he would be a high tier mage. Also most mages don't have much access to meta spells. Basically, other specialized cards don't answer meta spells well enough to let you forgo them, this then forces you to answer them with other meta spells. Which training then gets in the way of. Akiro's Hammer(minus the flaw of no indirect on the 8 dice) is a PERFECT example of this. Every mage needs something like this. Thematic, unique, and bumps them up to or at least near wizard tier. Honestly, I would say release a whole spell tome of cards specifically designed to balance the game and give each mage that already exists an even better and more distinct playstyle

How many spells that currently exist do you think would become or stay useless because of such a spell tome?

This might significantly increase power creep.

Would it make spellbook building more challenging for the wizard, or make spellbook building easier for everyone else, both or neither?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 10:16:35 am by Sailor Vulcan »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

Hanma

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2015, 10:34:12 am »
How many spells that currently exist do you think would become or stay useless because of such a spell tome?
The only victim I think of becoming useless would be Steal Enchantment or Steal Equipment. Both of those cards are attempted examples of what I'm talking about but are just to expensive to really use on Forcemaster en masse. If there was a reprint it should be exactly like dissolve/dispel, + 1 mana maybe, but give you the option of paying double to steal things. I don't think it would really knock cards down from playable to unplayable though, simply due to lack of playable cards that are like what I described. Ex, conquer is unfortunately unplayable.

This might significantly increase power creep.
This is true, it totally could. I honestly wouldn't be entirely against that as long as the power creep favors the balance of the game for specialized mages though. Although, if the new cards synergized with the old ones, that would help a lot. So something that was unplayable is given new avenues of use due to new cards.

Would it make spellbook building more challenging for the wizard, or make spellbook building easier for everyone else, both or neither?
I don't know that it would make it more challenging for Wizard, just give him harder match ups. The best example I can think of is Magic. Blue in magic is essentially arcane in Mage Wars, counterspell can generally answer every card in Magic. I think it's fine that Wizard in general is very well rounded and has a way to deal with most things. The problem is that the other mages specialized strategies just aren't strong enough to give a reason to not play Wizard. Like, if Warlord was fixed I think he would dump on anyone that made conjurations SOOOO hard. I think if anything, it would make spell book building for everyone else way more fun! Because every book you built, if the mage changed it would be like playing a totally different book. As it is right now, you're going to see dissolve/dispel/seeking dispel/mana crystal(or wardstone) in pretty much every competitive book.

iNano78

  • Ambassador
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • Playing at the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa
    • View Profile
    • Ottawa/Gatineau Mage Wars (FB group)
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2015, 10:40:22 am »
This discussion isn't a new one. 
*edit* to add list of links to similar discussions, some dating back to 2013 or earlier:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15570.0
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15370.0
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13773.0
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14864.0
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12994.0

While it would be great to have a large data set for detailed statistics, we only have a few tournament results to suggest that the Wizard is indeed the most powerful mage to some degree.  The best players either play the Wizard themselves, or build their spell books specifically to deal with Wizards, both because they're expected to be prevalent in competition and because a Wizard is pretty much always a tough match-up for every other mage.

Looking at it the other way, in a healthy meta in an asymmetric game, any mage and spell book will have some good match-ups and some bad match-ups.  It seems that well-constructed Wizards have many good match-ups, maybe a few even match-ups, and generally the "toughest" match-up that a Wizard needs to plan for is another Wizard.  All other mages have good and bad match-ups against other mages, and as far as I can tell, they all have a bad match-up against a Wizard and thus need to build and develop strategies specifically for facing Wizards.  But most evidence comes from limited tournament data and anecdotal evidence that might be biased by "group think" and/or sample bias (e.g. if half of all players play Wizards, and most top players play Wizards, then it shouldn't be surprising that Wizards tend to dominate) and confirmation bias.

Instead of statistics, we can also look (again) at what many perceive to be the "unfair" advantages of Wizards, and compare them to other mages:

1) high channeling of 10 (equal to some other mages, but a distinct and obvious advantage over any mage with channeling of 9);
2) cheap access to more channeling increasers than any other mage (up to 6x Mana Crystals, Moonglow Amulet, Harmonize);
3) the highest channeling creature spawn point - unless the opposing mage intentionally casts fewer spells in order to minimize it (which would probably be just as advantageous to the Wizard due to higher channeling);
4) an innate defensive ability that is always useful, as opposed to highly conditional abilities that either don't get used often (sometimes not even in every match) or need to be built around;
4b) the most obvious counter to this defensive ability would be to swarm the Wizard with lots of creatures/attacks, since Voltaric Shield only negates damage from one attack per round, but Wizard also has cheap or exclusive access to most of the best anti-swarm spells (Suppression Cloak, Mordok's Obelisk, your choice of zone attack spell(s) - e.g. Chain Lightning/Electrify or Hail of Stones or Ring of Fire/Firestorm) so that strategy tends not to be viable; oh, and if the opponent instead tries to use one very heavily buffed creature to overcome your Voltaric Shield (plus a "wasted" attack to turn it off first), you have Banish to deal with that;
5) the best innate attack in the game (ranged + ethereal, ignores guards, can be used with Quick Cast, only costs 1 mana which means if you use it every turn you're on par with mages who don't spend mana to attack but have innate channeling of 9; or think of it like an attack spell you always have access to in addition to your 2 chosen cards and possibly Mage Wand or Arcane Wand);
6) cheap access to the most staple spells (Dispel, Seeking Dispel, Teleport, Nullify, Jinx, Mage Wand, Arcane Wand), leaving more room for specialized spell book building (e.g. cheapest "base" cost);
7) cheap access to an element of your choice (tied with Warlock and Warlord and better than all other mages, except you can choose which one you want - e.g. pick "water" for more staples for maximum efficiency, etc);
8) regular cost access to every other school (e.g. all the Nature enchantments; any creature(s) you might want; a toolbox of attack spells for your Wizard's Tower - see below);
9) cheap access to powerful hard-to-kill arcane creatures with strong abilities;
10) Wizard's Tower = NOT zone exclusive, NOT Epic familiar conjuration (e.g. can protect a Battle Forge or Mordok's Obelisk or whatever) that is almost like putting a second Wizard in play.

Basically, if there's something you want to do, the Wizard can probably do it equally well or better than any other mage.  OK, that's not really true: he can't pump out a creature swarm like a Beastmaster or Necromancer, nor is he as efficient as a Dark Mage at Damage Over Time, nor as efficient as a Holy Mage at healing, but the Wizard doesn't need those when he can kill you before DOT has a chance to factor in and before you can do enough damage to make him need healing (e.g. wins a damage race) or can deal with swarms to render them irrelevant.  When you add up all the things the Wizard does better than another given mage (and that a Wizard generally doesn't do anything worse - e.g. no drawbacks relative to any other mage), it seems obvious that the Wizard would be the best choice most of the time, and that you'd be putting yourself at a disadvantage by playing any other mage.  You'd have to work hard to overcome another mage's disadvantage(s) through spell book building and/or clever play and/or luck, trying to find a way to surprise your opponent to gain other advantages.

(This partly explains how a creature swarm Beastmaster was able to win a high-profile tournament dominated by Wizards last year: nobody expected a swarm because it had been written off as "not viable" so few packed the obvious counters, and in a match that could easily have gone the other way (in favour of a Wizard), a key Chain Lightning attack roll fizzled, allowing the swarm to survive and win.)

As for a "fix," I agree with a lot of Sailor Vulcan's comments, especially that nerfing Wizard's Tower merely takes away one of the Wizard's tools but doesn't change any of his other advantages (e.g. doesn't fix the Wizard himself).  He can still pack a toolbox of attack spells including any elemental spells that come out in the future, and still has his high channeling, innate Arcane Zap attack spell, innate Voltaric Shield defense, etc.  That isn't to say Wizard's Tower shouldn't see errata (e.g. at least make it Zone Exclusive and/or Epic and/or add a cost to change spells) - just that it might not fix the problem where the Wizard is the "best" competitive mage.

I think the Wizard would still be on par with other mages if all unchosen element schools, and possible Nature, cost triple.  This would remove the "I have all the good spells" toolbox that he can currently pack for much cheaper than any other mage.  I could also see him still being competitive if his Arcane Zap cost as much as 3 mana (e.g. becomes more like a reasonably priced attack spell he always has with him, rather than a practically free attack spell)... but I doubt that mana-taxing Arcane Zap on its own would do much without also sbp-taxing the out-of-school attack spells.

As for the poker analogy... as a (former?) avid poker player, I had to shake my head.  Poker is a symmetric game (assuming you play many complete orbits of hands in a session).  Mage Wars is inherently an asymmetric game.  If the only mage anyone could play was the Wizard - or taking it to an even greater extreme, if everyone had to play the same spell book - then the poker comparison would be valid.  However, the perceived handicap of any other mage vs. Wizard is more like playing Texas Hold'em where one player always has connected hole cards (e.g. 67s or JQo) and the other player always has a pocket pair (e.g. 55 or KK).  The player with connected cards will win some hands, and might be able to play well enough to win a large enough share of hands and large pots through smart play (e.g. knowing when to fold; knowing when to bluff; correct bet sizing; etc) and even come out on top in a given session, but on average, the player who always has a pocket pair will win more hands, and if he's equally competent, should win more money in the long run.  That would be an unfair asymmetric game, not due to the rules of the game itself but due to the added asymmetric component being unfair... which is what we're talking about when we say the Wizard is inherently at an advantage vs. other mages.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:35:26 am by iNano78 »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

iNano78

  • Ambassador
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • Playing at the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa
    • View Profile
    • Ottawa/Gatineau Mage Wars (FB group)
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2015, 10:54:54 am »
I also don't think adding an intentionally overpowered "this mage only" card on the power level of Wizard's Tower to increase each other mage's power level would be a good thing in the game.  Any card that basically says "you need to have this in your book in order to compete" restricts creativity and diminishes from spell book building, especially given it wouldn't be included in the core set.  Many of the Wizard's advantages are written on his mage card.  Unless all the other mages get equally powerful mage abilities and stats on their mage cards, I don't see how adding cards alone will serve to balance the game.  This is true for some of the mages relative to other non-Wizard mages (e.g. why the Johktari Beastmaster and Malakai Priest seem to be disadvantaged relative to their core set counterparts; it's not access to cards but rather their more conditional / must be built around / harder to trigger / weaker abilities that make them less competitive - or at least more difficult to win with).  Also, balancing the game through future cards still runs into the problem that any non-exclusive non-arcane cards would be available to the Wizard for 2x sbp, and any elemental school spells could even be 1x sbp.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:06:46 am by iNano78 »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Halewijn

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1788
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2015, 11:25:49 am »
couldn't agree more with anything Sailor Vulcan and iNano78 said.  :)
Making more powerfull spells is not the solution. It could ruin the game all together.

With x3 for non-trained elemental schools and nature x3, the wizard would be forced to be a bit more like the "core-set" wizard. Mana denial & Using big strong creatures and supporting them with teleport/dispel/...

People that really want an attack spell build can afterwards buy the elementalist. I trust Arcane wonders that they will make sure that he is balanced.  ;D

Also: Keejchens awesome wizard book would maybe be better an elementalist.  ::)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:28:33 am by Halewijn »
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
When in doubt kill it with fire? I never doubt and crush them right away.

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2015, 05:05:11 pm »

couldn't agree more with anything Sailor Vulcan and iNano78 said.  :)
Making more powerfull spells is not the solution. It could ruin the game all together.

With x3 for non-trained elemental schools and nature x3, the wizard would be forced to be a bit more like the "core-set" wizard. Mana denial & Using big strong creatures and supporting them with teleport/dispel/...

People that really want an attack spell build can afterwards buy the elementalist. I trust Arcane wonders that they will make sure that he is balanced.  ;D

Also: Keejchens awesome wizard book would maybe be better an elementalist.  ::)

I did not think there were currently any plans for an elementalist. Is this just speculation, or is it a real thing?
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

wtcannonjr

  • Ambassador of Wychwood
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • WBC Mage Wars Tournament
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2015, 06:26:08 pm »

So if the real concern here is to balance tournament play then wouldn't it be easier to just change tournament rules that impact only a few dozen players at a time rather than change the game itself which impacts all players at all levels?

AW is always changing the game by adding new cards, and those changes affect everyone who buys the new product, or plays against someone who did. On that level, they're not interested in only doing the easier thing.

Now, my tournament example doesn't suggest any particular solution at all. It's really about how two conditions that seem contradictory can co-exist easily. It can simultaneously be true that Wizard is best and should dominate the meta, and also that Wizard only provides a relatively small bonus which is substantially smaller than the advantage gained through play skill.

Depending on how you define "op", Wizard can be both OP and much less of a factor than player skill.

So you're right, if we define OP as "disruptive to tournament play" we'll have a lower threshold than if we use "unfair in repeaded matches of serious play" which is lower than, "unbalanced in single casual games."

The complicating issue is that while tactics occur in the context of individual games and matchups, strategies can be taught and researched online, and tend to flow down from tournament play to serious play to casual play. So disruptions to the tournament metagame get adopted by even casual players. So even though casual players are far more likely to play less reliable tactics, they often end up copying highly optimized tournament strategies that are built for environments that magnify even the smallest incremental advantage.

--

Now, to be clear, I'm not totally convinced that Wizard's edge is only 55/45. I've pretty reliably beaten players who I suspect would be +100 to +200 elo points above me; and I did it by playing a carefully designed Wizard against Druid or Necromancer books they were working on. Maybe Wizard fits my strengths and weaknesses better, or maybe it's just got more power.

Hard to say with certainty, ya know?

Understood.

I am not opposed to expanding the game through expansions and scenario play. However, making changes to core rules and card errata after publication creates barriers for new players who often see this as an unstable game system or a poor testing/development process. As I said before I don't see a problem with the Wizard as is.

When I first learned the game we always designed spellbooks against known specific mages like in a boxing match. It was fun. This might be an interesting tournament format. Players pre-register their mage class so that all players can design their spellbooks for a specific  field of mages. For example, 3 Wizard's, 2 Beastmasters, 2 Forcemasters, etc.
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
The Wizard discussion
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2015, 07:18:19 pm »

So if the real concern here is to balance tournament play then wouldn't it be easier to just change tournament rules that impact only a few dozen players at a time rather than change the game itself which impacts all players at all levels?

AW is always changing the game by adding new cards, and those changes affect everyone who buys the new product, or plays against someone who did. On that level, they're not interested in only doing the easier thing.

Now, my tournament example doesn't suggest any particular solution at all. It's really about how two conditions that seem contradictory can co-exist easily. It can simultaneously be true that Wizard is best and should dominate the meta, and also that Wizard only provides a relatively small bonus which is substantially smaller than the advantage gained through play skill.

Depending on how you define "op", Wizard can be both OP and much less of a factor than player skill.

So you're right, if we define OP as "disruptive to tournament play" we'll have a lower threshold than if we use "unfair in repeaded matches of serious play" which is lower than, "unbalanced in single casual games."

The complicating issue is that while tactics occur in the context of individual games and matchups, strategies can be taught and researched online, and tend to flow down from tournament play to serious play to casual play. So disruptions to the tournament metagame get adopted by even casual players. So even though casual players are far more likely to play less reliable tactics, they often end up copying highly optimized tournament strategies that are built for environments that magnify even the smallest incremental advantage.

--

Now, to be clear, I'm not totally convinced that Wizard's edge is only 55/45. I've pretty reliably beaten players who I suspect would be +100 to +200 elo points above me; and I did it by playing a carefully designed Wizard against Druid or Necromancer books they were working on. Maybe Wizard fits my strengths and weaknesses better, or maybe it's just got more power.

Hard to say with certainty, ya know?

Understood.

I am not opposed to expanding the game through expansions and scenario play. However, making changes to core rules and card errata after publication creates barriers for new players who often see this as an unstable game system or a poor testing/development process. As I said before I don't see a problem with the Wizard as is.

This is a problem of appearances. Mage wars is actually much more balanced and stable than other customizable strategy games usually are. And there are always going to be mistakes in any game of this genre. There are too many moving parts that change too frequently. People seem to hold customizable strategy games to the same standard of inerrancy as a game of stratego or cards against humanity,  even though games like stratego or cards against humanity aren't anywhere near as complicated to balance. The problem isn't poor testing/development process, the problem is that there are only five people in the company that's making it! What about ccg's and their super-long ban lists? People seem to see those as being "stable" and having a fairly "good" testing/development process, right? How is banning a card any less indicative of a mistake than errata is?

I'm not sure banning cards in Mage Wars is even feasible. If cards were sold individually then it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But Mage wars cards are sold in sets, and if a card in a set is overpowered and gets banned, then that decreases the value of that whole set. A similar but not quite as bad problem can happen if a card is so underpowered that it's never or very rarely usable. This is likely why garrison post was errata'd, since not just a single spell, but an entire Mage, the warlord, was severely underpowered at the time, and he needed the garrison post to work right in order for him to take proper advantage of his barracks spawnpoint.

So instead they have to make more cards to rebalance things, and when that isn't enough, yes they do sometimes have to errata.

I notice no one is saying that there wasn't enough data for the garrison post errata. Anecdotal evidence on its own is weak evidence, but it's still evidence nonetheless. What we have is a LOT of anecdotal evidence over an extended period of time, much of which is from very talented competitive players, coupled with supporting tournament data.

And yes, the beastmaster won at gen con last year. On its own, that would be moderate to strong evidence that nothing's wrong. But in light of all the other evidence pointing the other way, I think it's more likely to be more of an outlier.

The first two rounds of the tournament are Swiss format. Maybe we should try to look at the mages and win-loss-draw ratios of all the players, not just the winner, and see if we notice any patterns.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 07:25:09 pm by Sailor Vulcan »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

vlad3theimpaler

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2015, 10:52:26 pm »
If we take a large sample of players of roughly equal skill and find that those playing wizards win sginificantly more often than any other mages, then we can conclude that the wizard is overpowered.  (Not necessarily broken, but overpowered.)
If we find that the wizard's win percentage is so high that the metagame becomes "how do I beat a wizard," then I would be willing to call it broken.

I don't think we're at the point of brokenness, but I do think the evidence supports the claim that the wizard IS overpowered.

Is the sample size players or tournaments? It seems to me we would need solid tournament-level data over multiple tournaments and geographies to really understand this using statistical methods. I don't think we have this type of data but perhaps some of the community have seen it. If it exists then let's publish it for review by all.

I find it interesting when last year's GEN CON winner was a Beastmaster. There wasn't a large discussion on the forum about the Beastmaster being overpowered. Credit was given to the player for designing a spellbook that no one was able to counter effectively IN THAT specific tournament. This year with the wizard dominating player choices for spellbook designs and winning overall we don't seem to be having the same conversation with credit given to the player.

Perhaps public discussion of an overpowered Wizard is creating group think in the tournament community so that more Wizard's enter tournament play and therefore are more likely to win tournament play. Is there any data available to test this idea?
Of course there wasn't a discussion about the Beastmaster being overpowered.  That was a list that won ONE major event.
That's not what we're talking about here.  This is a wizard thread, not a gencon thread.  We're talking about the CONTINUOUS dominance (or at least, perceived dominance) of wizards across a large number of events since nearly the inception of the game.  Not even close to the same thing.
  • Favourite Mage: Darkfenne Necromancer

Halewijn

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1788
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2015, 02:06:39 am »
I did not think there were currently any plans for an elementalist. Is this just speculation, or is it a real thing?

Not sure.. I thought there were, but now I think I'm wrong.
  • Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord
When in doubt kill it with fire? I never doubt and crush them right away.

zot

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 777
  • Banana Stickers 5
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2015, 04:14:26 pm »
   I just found this thread. I just mentioned about the wizard under the gencon discussion thread. I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I do not think the wizard is over powered, or needs any changes. I also agree that we should not make a bunch of his spells novice. As is mentioned, nullify is not in every book, but dispel is in many. They just release a new dispel for academy which may prove useful to some. So, changes are happening over time as is normal.

   I think tweaking should not happen to any of it at this point. A bm won gencon last year, and the tower was out then too. So, any given day anything can happen.

   I cannot agree enough that it is the player, not the mage. However, that said, some mages are better than others. You cannot create true parity with mages who have different flavors and uniqueness. It is bound to happen some are better than others. However, you can try to minimize the disparity between them. I suspect that over time, the ones on the bottom rungs will get improved. PVS cannot do anything but help the wizard since it will round out the water element. But, hopefully the wizard will become somewhat static, while other mages get some new tools as other sets are released.

   I almost lost to sharkbait in our match. He was hyper aggressive and it was a chore to weather that firestorm. I probably was lucky he did not off me along the way. I managed to turn the corner on him and fight my way back. And he did not have a tower, playing the fire sorceress.


zot

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 777
  • Banana Stickers 5
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2015, 04:28:25 pm »
   Regarding the statistics for tournament play.  I think the first real event back in 2013 Bashcon, a warlock won. Origins 2013 saw a priestess win, I was in that game playing for first place with a forcemaster. That event is the reason why hob, and tol got errata. Gencon 2013, an earth wizard won, and I was playing for first place then too, and was playing an air wizard.

  Not sure what won origins 2014, and 2015. Last gencon of course a bm won. and a water wizard won this year.

  It would be nice to get more data on wins in other events. The assessment regarding group think is valid too. If in many local groups, the best player happens to play wizard and beats everyone, they presume wizard is unbeatable. I do think there is not enough data to confirm any conclusions at this point.

  I do not think that among the top tier mages: wizard, warlock, necro that any one consistently wins against the others. No mage is unbeatable, and there is no such thing as an unbeatable build for any of the mages. All mages in the hands of experienced players are dangerous to play against. Especially if they also built those mages spell books.

Schwenkgott

  • Thunderdome
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1430
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2015, 06:14:23 pm »
Spoken like a true Mage Warrior  8)
Akiro, I have never prayed to you before. No one will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that one stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Akiro... so grant me strength! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

Sailor Vulcan

  • Secret Identity: Imaginator
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2015, 07:48:53 pm »
THIS JUST IN! It turns out that the wizard can do everything an arraxian crown warlock does just as well as an arraxian crown warlock, if not better. Yes, you heard right. A wizard that's pretending to be a warlock is equal to the real thing if not better. And a wizard that isn't pretending to be a warlock is even better than that.

I just had a really fun epic duel with the gen con champ on OCTGN. He was using his fake warlock against my real one. Other than the one main play mistake I made all game and the fact that I got terrible rolls, we were actually fairly evenly matched.

The wizard should not be able to warlock just as well as or better than a warlock. I think this counts as conclusive evidence that the wizard is OP. While I was using core set x1 only arraxian crown warlock, core set x1 only is not a big enough disadvantage to explain how his imitation-warlock was able to put up such a good fight and win against my real one.

You can watch the awesome fight here:

http://www.twitch.tv/carcharodonmega/v/10684198
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 07:52:30 pm by Sailor Vulcan »
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster
I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

DaveW

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: The Wizard discussion
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2015, 09:25:28 pm »
How can you see the board? I have a 17" monitor and can barely make out what is going on....
  • Favourite Mage: Asyra Priestess